That's one of the things I want answered. Who killed the guy...how lame and dumb do they think we are that cameras just happen to not be working while good ole jeffrey decided to rid us of his presence?
OT: Epstein
- Thread starter cruelhalo
- Start date
That's one of the things I want answered. Who killed the guy...how lame and dumb do they think we are that cameras just happen to not be working while good ole jeffrey decided to rid us of his presence?
It really depends on whose name might be on the list. Some do not want their chosen XYZ to have anything uncovered that might prove that they have made a bad choice in support.
I'm sure it's all about convenient truth....we already know one "bad 🍊 man is on it" so I think for most people we'd rather just lock on to that, and say "see you can't expose the list without talking about your boy!"
Which i think, to your point, is just a deflection....yeah we know he's on there. We also know he has a history that is well recorded with him moving away from Epstein. So the convenient truth is he's on the list. The whole truth is, he's on the list, but probably wasn't involved in the diddling.
And so my take. Yeah he's on the list....so what. I want to know everyone on the list. I want them all to be vetted. And if you can pin any of them to doing something bad, regardless of who they are, then I want that too.
I mean is it more beneficial for a certain president to bring more attention to it, if he's hiding something? Or is it more beneficial for him to say "yeah there are a lot of people on that list who probably didn't do anything?" Just seems like a risky game to play if you're hiding something, and it seems to upset other people more than this administration when it gets talked about.
No one is destroying anyone's reputation. Does the government really need to hide who people associate with?
You and I are living in different zip codes on this subject. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what they decide.
Last edited by a moderator:
Add to the list of not knowing:
Who brought cocaine into the White House that every square inch under surveillance?
Who planted the bombs on J6 also in an area that was extremely well surveilled?
Who was Crooks? Why haven't we heard more and his life totally wiped clean?
Who was driving the Tesla that blew up in front of a Trump building in Vegas?
Who was the guy who plowed through a crowd in New Orleans? Noting that he and the Vegas guy were at the same base.
Why has almost every President vowed to release the JFK files but never have?
Reported;y, files in the FBI have been deleted like crazy but there certainly must be multiple redundancy programs so what are they hoping to accomplish or hide?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you think either side gives a fck about us regular people, you're a fool.
Let me know when they go after the real waste and corruption in govt.
Let me know when they go after the real waste and corruption in govt.
As long as we get a streetcar in my town, I’m good.
But no rails. Pretty sure Randy Newman wrote a song about sketchy rails. Streetcar yes, rails no.
I choose the people who will run things the way I think it should be dun...no perfect choice exists...but run things as how I see fit (like everyone else)....Never really thought much if they cared about me. I assume they don't love or hate me...they want me to choose them, their caring prolly emds there. .but they're hired by us to do a job.
Russia loves deals like that and our own CIA has used “honey pots” to gain intelligence.
We don't want the list.....we want the tapes.
One side is 100% corrupt, the other about 70 to 75%.....
I'll be waiting for the first person who actually comes out and says, "Sure, like a lot of people, I rape sex trafficked girls."
Government contracts with private companies. Defense, space, air transportation, et al.
There are a few honest people in government on either side. I am sure. None of them we have ever heard of, but hey the social media and biased news outlets have their back. There's money in it for them too.
There are A LOT of bad parents out there. Many of them are also single parents with drug addictions to boot. But I would guess that most sex trafficked and kidnapped girls are runaways.
Oh for sure most of them are kidnapped or runaways.
I guess I mean for this island though, I feel like they were not kidnapped they were like "models" and stuff, I guess I just don't get it.
In the Netflix documentary I watched, they weren't runaways. They were just normal underage girls who wanted to make some extra money and weren't old enough to know what they were really getting themselves into.
And as far as parenting, the vast majority of the parents likely had no idea their daughters were doing this. Teenagers lie to their parents all the time about what they're doing for far less. Highly doubtful any of them said, "Hey, mom and dad, I'm getting paid to go to some rich old guy's house to give him a massage. Cool?"
Absolutely entitlement programs. I thought this would be the chance to cut a bunch from these programs, but once again just a bunch of posturing.
I don't know about the island, but the articles I had read, the girls going to his house for "massages" were literally just girls from local schools that were tricked into coming there.
Not a chance DOGE would ever try that, not to mention I highly doubt it would hold up. It’s way too political and should only be dealt with through legislation
These guys aren't going to cut anything that affects their own companies stock prices or their friends or companies that buy off politicians and justices. That isn't going to happen, but it would be great if it did. That's why they go after the low hanging fruit. Screw the little guy. The billionaires at the inauguration will be just fine. And yes, that goes for both sides-- newsflash, the politicians on one side are not men of virtue while the other side is full of snakes.
I was talking about legislation. Sounds like medicaid is off the table and while I support strengthening of the snap work requirements, I wish they would make real cuts to these programs.
No, I’m not suggesting they’ll cut spending for defense, I don’t want them to. I’m suggesting they will look at contracts for things such as $57,000 toilets, fix the obvious bloat (which may be a lot), and repurpose the funds for legit stuff. I actually think there are a few politicians who give a shit. Not sure it is enough. More efficient spending, more efficient production. I’m expecting it.
it's been a little over a month, my guess and hope is they will take a hard look behind closed doors after they get settled in.
That's what I am talking about. Huge contracts. Paying many times what something is worth. Personally, I don't think DOGE will deal with any of this unless they only go after certain companies and let others go. You know, say DEI a few times or whatever. It's all good. (yes I am cynical)
I do too, but it's seems to be off the table already. And I doubt they would cut these as we get closer to 2026. Cut them now and show that people will survive. I'm not talking about getting the programs. We just need to start making sustainable cuts to all programs and start paying down debt. Nothing crazy, but just a step in the right direction. Cut a small enough amount and it will be unpopular to reverse it. Cut too much and it will be popular to reverse it.
Not sure I want them screwing with allocation of funds in critical areas, except to itemize and highlight apparent imbalances. Put together a list for upper management and let them go to work.
Doge is a distraction. Cuts have to come from congress. These tech weirdos don't understand how DC works or what they are cutting. They are talking about trying to pass a clean continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. That is literally insane. That means the entire fy25 budget would be at 2024 spending levels. With a one party majority. Talk about dysfunction.
They try it now, before midterms, it's all the other side will need to play identity politics and every hate card on the planet to get enough of their side in in 2026, and after that, there is zero chance to do anything about it. The only chance is to wait until after mid-terms, that you keep and / or add those who would support it, and hope you have the votes.
I assume that by "tech weirdos" you mean intelligent, but on the spectrum virgins with a limited understanding of the real world. Some of them are reporting that they are being made to work 100+ hour weeks.
Sure. If they don't like the hours they can always quit. Can't wait to see if they have to testify under oath. That should be classic.
